Was this REALLY Beta Tested ?

[Prime_Evil]

Historically, even peasants could scrape by enough coin to wear some kind of helmet to battle (even if it was only a pot!). Give the enemy NPCs helmets and see how long your players keep up headshots.

This point is worth emphasizing. People aren't stupid. Even if they can't afford any other armour, they will still invest in a helmet because they know that being injured in the head can be deadly!

If your characters are always targeting the head, it's because their opponents aren't taking sensible precautions against the most dangerous type of injury in combat. Although not everyone will wear a helmet, most people who are expecting trouble will do so.

 

[mwsasser]

Still waiting to see those house rules...

 

[swampslug]

I have many examples, but my favourite I have brought up in another thread: why is it that War Swords, Falchions, Sabres, Long Swords (the "Core Book" swords) have Hardness 6 but Bastard Swords, Broadswords and others (the "A&E" swords) have Hardness 4?

The answer I suspect is that the weapon tables were not properly polished when converted from MRQ to MRQ2, rather than any historical, "realistic" difference in strengths between those weapons.

Does anyone who bought Arms of Legend know if the weapon tables were changed from A&E?

Only changes I can see are orientation of the table, the Awl Pike and Bill now state that they are 2H and they've fixed the Target Shield's Size and Reach (A&E misprinted it as M/L instead of L/S) but it's a big table and I haven't had a chance to go through it fully.

To continue your point about swords, I fail to see the point of the Bastard Sword? It costs the same as a longsword (or for +10 SP you can gain +5% to parrying), has the same stat requirements to weild but appears to be inferior. When wielded 1-handed it gains +1 damage but it loses reach and AP and when wielded 2-handed loses size, reach, AP and Sunder.
It seems like all the negative points against it are intended to balance the skill bonus you have to pay for, in which case why make it an option?

 

[RangerDan]

To continue your point about swords, I fail to see the point of the Bastard Sword? It costs the same as a longsword (or for +10 SP you can gain +5% to parrying), has the same stat requirements to weild but appears to be inferior. When wielded 1-handed it gains +1 damage but it loses reach and AP and when wielded 2-handed loses size, reach, AP and Sunder.
It seems like all the negative points against it are intended to balance the skill bonus you have to pay for, in which case why make it an option?

Indeed, this one also made my list of A&E weirdness. The Bastard Sword is utterly inferior to the Long Sword when wielded two-handed (it's barely better than a one-handed War Sword.. at a loss of a potential bonus CA!). This is completely at odds with the text, which if I recall correctly suggest that a Bastard Sword is a Long Sword with an elongated hilt, to allow for more powerful two-handed blows. I disagree with your final assessment though: I don't think this was a conscious balancing decision, but rather that the Bastard Sword is still its MRQ version, while the Long Sword, War Sword et al are MRQII versions.

Thanks for taking the time to look Swampslug - I was hoping they would have used this chance to clean up the things that don't make sense...

 

[Redcrow]

3 For the bear's paw, we can find all reasons in the world to explain why it's only a M, or yes, it could simply be a typo, blocking a bear hit for no damage with a Dirk is NOT among the things I'll allow, simply beacause it sounds ridiculous. Again, nothing big, but unreliable info. Again.

There is a bit of oddness here and there with creatures and I think part of it could be that alot of the combat seems like it was designed focusing more on 'humanoid melee vs. humanoid melee' and creature combat seems a little bit tacked-on or merely copy/pasted straight from previous editions. This is just IMHO of course. YMMV.